3G-rollout - report 2005 - PTS-ER-2005:26 - June 23, 2005
23/06/2005
On 1 March 2004, the UMTS licence holders reported on how they had satisfied the licence conditions regarding population coverage. PTS thereafter processed the information obtained and could conclude that the licence holders did not satisfy the requirements for population coverage. PTS subsequently formally notified the licence holders that they had not satisfied the conditions. This notification stated that the licence holders were given reasonable time for rectification and to satisfy the population coverage conditions up to 1 December 2004.
In June 2004, Hi3G, Vodafone, Svenska UMTS-licens AB (SULAB), Tele2 and TeliaSonera jointly applied for an amendment to the licence conditions. The operators applied for an extension of the time for the rollout until 31 December 2007 (with graduated building requirements for the years 2004 to 2006) and for an amendment of certain technical parameters (the requirement for a pilot signal and surface probability). By a decision of 7 December 2004, PTS found that the same advanced services retaining the same high quality could possibly be provided by a lower pilot signal in those areas outside urban areas. The application for amendments of the other parts of the licence conditions was rejected.
In December 2004, PTS could once again conclude that the licence holders did not satisfy the requirements for population coverage. Set against the background of amendments having been made to the licence conditions in December 2004, PTS decided that the licence holders must be formally notified once again that they still had not satisfied the requirements of the licence conditions imposed. On 27 January 2005, the companies were thus notified and given reasonable time for rectification and to satisfy the population coverage conditions up to 28 February 2005. The notification also stated that if the operators had not, by 28 February 2005 at the latest, implemented rectification and achieved coverage in accordance with the licence conditions, PTS might issue an order in accordance with Chapter 7, Section 5 of EkomL. Such an order might, if necessary, be combined with a default fine.
In March 2005, PTS requested details of what population coverage the licence holders had achieved by 1 March 2005. It transpired, from the information received by PTS, that Hi3G had achieved a population coverage amounting to 7 694 072 people, Vodafone 7 661 399 people and SULAB 7 641 085 people. This corresponds to 87 %, 86 % and 86 % respectively of a population of 8 860 000 people.
In June 2005, Hi3G applied for an amendment to the licence conditions. Among other things, Hi3G wants to replace what is left of the 3G rollout with coverage through the digital mobile telephone network in the 450 MHz band. PTS will examine the application and will give all the licence holders the opportunity to show whether they can guarantee what is left of the 3G rollout with an alternative technology, without disadvantage for the consumer. Consequently, PTS will wait with the imposition of an order (combined with a default fine) requiring the operators to complete the 3G rollout.
PTS has during 2003 and 2004 dealt with a number of matters with requests for a decision on co-location on masts. However, with the provisions of Chapter 4, Section 14 of EkomL PTS has limited means to impose an order for a co-location obligation.
On 17 February 2005, the Government appointed a committee which, considering the relevant aspects, should investigate the need of amendments to the rules for shared use of masts etc. that form part of the public communications network. PTS welcomes this initiative and has proposed, without wishing to preempt the work of the committee, an amendment to the provisions of Chapter 4, Section 14 of EkomL. PTS is of the view that there are two contributory factors in the provisions that prevent PTS from imposing an order for a co-location obligation to the extent desired. The contributory factors are first that it is a precondition for a review of co-location by PTS that the party applying for colocation does not have alternative possibilities for the location of transmitters owing, for instance, to rejection of a building permit for its own mast, and second the absence of powers to compel an operator to rebuild a mast to facilitate colocation.